Moo.

On 9/11

- September 11, 2011

A Reflection.


There is absolutely no lack of words floating around online about the 11th of September 2001, and what that day means a decade on. There are huge and beautiful features, stylistic interviews with those involved, analysis from ageing academics, reminders of how dramatic those days were, economic perspectives, insightful analysis and infinite personal reflections.

I’m lying in bed next to my snoring boyfriend, watching ABC News 24, wondering what I could possibly add. It is the end of Australia’s September 11th, and the beginning of America’s. Experts are discussing the legacy of that day, while muted in the background those that survived read out the names of those who did not.

Ironically, the best illustration of it’s legacy is at the bottom of the screen, below the chatting experts. A decade ago, in an effort to get more information across clearly and quickly in the days following the attack, CNN placed a news ticker at the bottom of their screen. Even after the uncertainty of those September days faded, the tickers remained. And there is one now, at the bottom of the ABC, flicking through the stories of the day with casual urgency.

President Obama and his lovely wife sit behind bulletproof glass with President Bush, and his lovely wife. At 8:46 a.m. New York time, they observe a minute silence for when the first plane hit. They do so again after 17 minutes, to mark the second plane. When Bush takes the lectern to read a letter from Lincoln to the widow of a Union soldier, he is met with enthusiastic applause. Obama reads from the Old Testament.

I was not there, and while I can empathise, the grief of New Yorkers is not my own. But I grew up in a generation whose first political memory is that of those towers coming down and the world, which we didn’t understand initially, changing irrevocably. Our introduction to the wider world was through vials of anthrax, the wars on terror, protests, division, fear. Like a cornered beast, the greatest country in the world was thrashing wildly, with fear and anger in it’s eyes.

This day is more than a day for America to remember the scar inflicted on it’s national psyche, and to mourn those they lost. It is a moment for the world to contemplate the last decade, a decade marked by the war and division unleashed in those attacks. We must wonder how well we rose to the challenges that the attacks presented us with.

It’s 9.37 a.m. in Washington, a plane hits the Pentagon. The Vice-President bows his head, as an a-cappella navy choir sings The Star-Spangled Banner in perfect harmony. Military, glitz and grief. A very American affair. There will be a tribute concert later, A Concert for Hope, opened with the words of President Obama.

Despite their resolve, the commemoration betrays how unsure America is of itself. The new World Trade Centre tower, a decade later, is unfinished. There is anger and hate for political leaders, who despite their lofty words could not even come together to pay for the cancer treatment of those who rushed into the dust to pull out bodies. More Americans are out of work than any time since Total War, and the crumbling American position has given radicals brandishing tea-bags the license to devolve national debate further.

It’s 9:59 a.m. The South Tower falls. The bells toll. Names continue to be read out, they are up to the C’s.

To a distant observer, emotionally softened via the distortion of television, it is easy to view 9/11 as a challenge for America and the world. It is even easier to see this as a challenge that they, and we, failed. The decade that followed was one of overreaction and destruction; a decade that saw war, inequality, division, recession and fear, as norms of society. As liberal governments became flippant with our freedoms, and unconsidered in their use of war, we became introverted and callous towards the outside world.

10:03 a.m. Hijackers drive a plane into the ground in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after passengers fight back.

But today, we see freedom blooming across the Arab world. A new fight has begun, and no longer tormented by the shadow of a mass-murderer, America is no longer blind with anger. A new understanding is emerging from 9/11 – the need for freedom and equality, that does not require destruction and stupidity to achieve those goals. Despite recession, debt-insanity, war and uncertainty, the world is becoming better. And the true challenge that 9/11 presented – of building a world order that is both equitable and stable, where such unthinkable acts are never even contemplated – waits to be fulfilled, but inches closer.

It is far too easy, on this delicate anniversary, to see failure. What we should see is possibility, and renewal.

10:28 a.m. The North Tower falls. The world is changed.

 

How to Undermine Your Credibility: Timothy Lynch

- September 4, 2011

In this Line of Ink, Max rips into an absurd article about the semi-insane Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, courtesy of The Age.

Doctor Timothy J. Lynch is a lecturer at my uni, and even in a field I study – American politics. I’ve never actually had him as a lecturer, though one day I hope to. He seems like a smart man, but smart men can still pen poorly thought-out articles that make wide-ranging claims in order to get published on the pages of a metro paper. This is one such article, that I tried but just can’t leave alone.

Here is how Lynch opens his article:

The Texas Governor’s race is made easier by Obama’s weaknesses.

Political scientists don’t have a good record as prophets. Not one of us predicted the collapse of the Berlin Wall. The candidacy of Rick Perry, however, has imbued me with an odd certitude. I think he is a cert, not just for the Republican nomination but also to become president in January 2013. Obama’s second term looked possible until the Texas Governor entered the race.

Yes, fine. Opening with a bit on how often political scientists are completely wrong in their predictions (which is, yes, all the time) is cute, though it kinda makes the claims he’s about to make seem even more absurd. He follows with this:

Before we deal with Perry’s strengths – real and accidental – consider Obama’s weaknesses. Unlike in 2008, the current President must run on a record. His promised ”change” has led to very little. His healthcare bill enraged his opponents, bemused his base and confused the Americans it was supposed to help. It was some way short of the reformation of US social policy that his ’08 campaign promised. And healthcare is now being packaged as his singular achievement.

No, Obama hasn’t magically changed everything, but he has done more than any President since LBJ to improve the situation of Americans.* But his point is largely valid: that most Americans can’t easily list what Obama has done, and that his health-care legislation is poorly understood.

I cannot say the same about the next statement (emphasis added):

You think that record looks ropy? Ponder what his enormous financial stimulus did to the US economy. Unemployment is as high now as when his Texan predecessor left the White House. Such a statistic is almost a political law: No president – unless they are Franklin Roosevelt – can be re-elected with unemployment higher at the close of his first term than at its beginning.

I’m not even going to dwell on the dumb claim that the stimulus contributed to US unemployment, because I absolutely cannot believe a professor would resort to what is one of the laziest claims made by US political pundits. Usually it comes in the form of no president can be re-elected with 8% unemployment. This claim is based on the fact that President Reagan was re-elected in 1984 with 7.2% unemployment, which to the shallow-minded idiots on cable news equates to a ‘political law’ that any unemployment rate above that is unelectable.

Lynch has slightly reworded this ‘law’ and in doing so is being extremely misleading. First, it’s worth noting that when we’re talking about unemployment as high as it is in the US today (which is currently a whopping 9.1%), there are really only three comparable presidents from the last century – President Ford, President Reagan, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt. President Ford never faced an election. Roosevelt was in charge during the Great Depression and was re-elected four times, despite having an unemployment rate around 20% for most of his presidency (which should in itself invalidate any unemployment/electability argument, though Roosevelt is always immediately declared an exception).

So there is then only one president whose situation is comparable to that of President Obama: President Reagan. Reagan came into office in January 1981 with 7.5% unemployment and was re-elected in November 1984 with 7.2%. So according to Lynch, this ‘law’ is that no president can be re-elected with higher unemployment at the close of his first term than at its beginning, even if it is only 0.3% down from when he assumed office he is suddenly electable.

This is absurd, misleading, and makes no sense. Under Reagan unemployment surged to 10.8%, higher than at any point under Obama, and he was re-elected in a landslide. No other presidents have had comparably high unemployment numbers, so comparing their situation to that of Obama’s makes no sense. This law is not a law, it is just a generic statement some people say at the start of an article to back up the argument that’s coming.

Actually, I’m being too kind, it’s a god-damned lie. President Nixon was first elected in November 1968 with an unemployment rate of 3.4%, he took office in January 1969 still with 3.4% unemployment. He was re-elected in November 1972 with 5.3% unemployment. That would be an example of a President being re-elected with higher unemployment at the close of his first term than at the beginning. Other examples include Presidents George W. Bush and Dwight D. Eisenhower. So, this ‘law’ is lazy, misleading, and yes, a blatant lie. Is it in fashion currently to write shit without actually checking if you’re even slightly correct?

Finally, it’s worth noting that Lynch is assuming the economy will stay horrible. He has no idea what’s going to happen to the US economy, it could still be in the shitter by election-time, or be slowly improving. At the equivalent time as today under Reagan, unemployment even higher at 9.5%, and it started to fall shortly after. What we do know is that contrary to Lynch’s effort to put a mathematical certainty to the chaotic and fluid world of politics, what matters more is people’s perceptions of how the economy is doing, and their view of the politicians themselves, not a freaking law plucked from thin air.

(Numbers come from here and here.)

*

I won’t keep quoting the article, but feel free to read the rest of it here. Essentially, Lynch goes on to describe the fantastic economy Perry created in Texas, something that Nobel-prize-winning economists have said is bullshit. He then compares Texas to Australia, for no particular reason.

But the crux of Lynch’s article is that because Obama is not a southern governor he is not going to win the 2012 election. It’s almost mind-numbing. It’s like he wrote this article with no pre-thought other than reading a list of the last few presidents (without bothering to look up their unemployment statistics). The trend of southern governors dates back about thirty years to Reagan. As George H.W. Bush wasn’t a governor, this makes it a trend of three, which is barely a trend. Regardless, trends have this awful habit of changing. Elections will, as always, be determined by a range of factors, not just where the candidates come from.

And it’s worth noting how lazy the understanding and description of Perry is. Perry is not, as you may think from reading this article, a shoe-in. Nor is he a moderate or even particularly likeable candidate. He is not the “compassionate conservative” Bush successfully sold himself as in 2000. Perry is a key figure of the tea-party movement, he is one of many radical anti-government governors with some huge liabilities to a mainstream audience. While Obama is still seen by most Americans as a moderate, rational and considered individual, Perry will struggle to gain traction with centrist voters. There is a reason the Republican establishment are suddenly running towards Romney, they don’t think Perry can win. And even if he can win, this race is wide open, and looking for bogus trends tells us bugger all.

What we have here is a surprisingly shallow analysis, one that makes an argument of electability based on who the candidates are, rather than what’s actually happening in American politics today. It’s sitting back and making broad, definitive statements about a nation based on a few chosen historical facts. It combines a pundit’s poor understanding with academic arrogance.

My point is this – just because we do not live in America does not mean we should accept lazy analysis. What happens in America matters because it does, however indirectly, affect our lives, and so we should seek a proper understanding of it. Perhaps as importantly, this represents a dangerous territory of journalism – it cheapens the credibility of academics when they write like this, and sells readers short.

 

* Just for the record: despite an absurdly paralysed and partisan Congress, Obama has initiated a massive health-care reform (which despite Lynch not liking it, will eventually give health insurance to some 40 million uninsured Americans), the largest stimulus act in history (which pumped billions into America’s crumbling schools and infrastructure and stopped the current slow-growth recession from being a complete-collapse-of-society recession), withdrawn combat troops from Iraq and carefully managed the situation in Afghanistan, helped Libyans gain their freedom with a cautious and pragmatic hand, repealed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and allowed gays to serve in the military, begun the most significant financial reform act in a generation and signed a deal with Russia to cut their nuclear arms by a third.

He also passed the Hate-Crimes Prevention Act, the Fair Pay Act, immediately gave health-insurance to 4 millions kids, and dozens of smaller, vital regulatory acts. Oh, and he killed bin Laden. Most achievements were not as big as they needed, or were expected, to be. But such is the cost of doing business. My point? Stop saying the President hasn’t got a shit-load done. He has.

 

You can email Max at maxdenton2@gmail.com

Empire of Love

- June 25, 2011

Max on what the recent legalisation of gay marriage in New York, America’s third most populous state, means for Australia and the fight for equality at home.

Art by Max Denton.

Oh New York, forever cementing itself as a cultural icon. Progress and promise were fulfilled today when New York became the largest state in the American Union to legalise gay marriage. Passed through both state houses with relatively little division or diversion, and the crucial support of several Republicans, it was a testimony to the ability of democratic parliaments to bring equality of relationships to the rule of law.

And as importantly, it symbolised the potential for the unbanning of gay marriage to be a moment not of culture wars but a transcendental moment of hope and happiness. My burning desire to visit New York, the city of writing, art and bagels, has never been stronger. Not that I want to get married any time soon, god no. But I wouldn’t mind seeing how traditional marriage, life and society will will be faring now that some gays can now take a mutual vow.

But the great moment for New York demands some introspection back home. Asked why he was voting for the legalisation of gay marriage despite pressure from his party, a Republican State Senator named Roy McDonald responded: “Well, fuck it, I don’t care what you think. I’m trying to do the right thing.” I’ve never understood why we don’t have that exact same attitude.

At the risk of generalising a set of Australian values, something I usually hate, what could possibly be more Australian than saying “Fuck it, I’m doing the right thing.” What do debates about the nature of marriage and the values of a traditional society matter when a small group of people are being harmed and hurt by discrimination from the law?

And why is our Prime Minister, a woman whose dour stated goal is to improve the lot of Australians through fighting for reform, pushing against gay marriage on the basis of “traditional values.” Some people call hypocrisy because she is unwed and atheist, a life just as incompatible with most conceptions of “traditional values” as loving your same-sex partner.

But no, I call hypocrisy based on something so much more fundamental: how can someone claim the mantle of compassion and not deliver reform that would improve the lot of a small group of people dramatically, with no trade-off but the removal of a few words? And how can that person then have the indecency to suggest that a small group of people are born incompatible with society’s values, and that that warrants punishment.

I know, I know. Punishment is a harsh descriptive. But being gay can sometimes be a harsh sentence.

It seems like throughout the history of the gay rights movement, we have been battling the image and idea that our lives are criminal. Not that long ago this was of course literally true. But the image has been harder to kill, persisting both because of society’s judgemental eye but also the underground way gay relationships and culture was often been conducted.

Rest stops, public bathrooms, beachfronts. Things that were, and sometimes still are, associated with gay sex as much as drug use. It’s this criminal mindset, this shame mixed with secrecy, that both fuelled and was fuelled by a disapproving society. Secret relationships, double-lives and gay-only clubs are it’s modern legacy.

How do you break this? Legitimacy. The slow march towards legitimacy under the law that has been gained over the last four decades has meant every generation of young gay people have been less marginalised and less ashamed than the one before. As the stigma slowly melts away, stronger and longer relationships blossom.

Most importantly, it makes it easier for the young kid in high school, afraid to go to school for fear of being called a name or exposed as an outsider.

Gay marriage will not magically cure all problems of discrimination and hardship for young gay people, but to someone like me in a long-term relationship, it dramatically changes the equation in a way that’s hard to express. At an age when friends are talking about buying houses, and moving out and golly, even getting married, it still seems somehow wrong or inappropriate for me to do the same. I want to be on the same path as them. I still want to make my own choices, but I want to be legally able to pursue any life I want.

According to Suicide Prevention Australia, around 30% of Australia’s gay teenagers will attempt suicide in their lives. They are 14 times more likely than straight teenagers to do so. If Julia Gillard is truly a compassionate leader, these are the people she should be helping. New York may be half a world away, and oh so very different to our small and humble nation. But the benefits of equality of love are as strong in any part of the world, and Australia should not let itself be left behind.

On The President and the Holy Land

- May 24, 2011

Obama may seem lost in the swirl of events in the Middle East, but as Max writes for A Line of Ink, he is doing the best he can with a shit-sandwich filled with shit-loaf.

The Obama Method

President Obama’s recent speech on his nation’s policy towards the middle-east, which you can see the video of above or watch a nice video summary of here, is a telling example of this president’s commitment to finding a better path in this deeply troubled but quickly evolving region. Thanks to it, and the many recent policy actions by the Obama White House, we’re starting to see the contours of a smarter, more pragmatic and more compassionate American foreign policy.

Obama has received a lot of flack for what could be described as a soft approach to the region. Obama’s cautious and quiet words on the Arab Spring and his refusal to take the lead militarily in Libya can be confusing when compared with his idealistic rhetoric. When compared with his ruthlessness and sovereignty-be-damned determination to kill Osama bin laden, it’s perhaps even more confusing.

But what this hides is a detailed and intelligent set of policies that are being carefully adapted to rapidly changing and, as this year has shown more than anything else, entirely unpredictable series of events. Resisting strong pressure from headline-focused US pundits and politicians, Obama refused to give into the temptation to talk loudly and offer overt support to the protesters of the Arab Spring. A clear example of his (sometimes too strong) focus on long-term outcomes over short-term domestic political gain. This caution allowed the movement to flourish organically and locally – and not be seen as democracy again imposed by the US. That the Arab world can ‘own’ democracy and establish it themselves is incredibly important to seeing freedom and civil rights bloom in the region.

Similarly, Libya required incredible diplomatic deftness and the quiet hand of the US. If it was led by anything but a regional coalition, it would have been seen as a new example of US imperialism and would have again cut short the still-bourgeoning democratic movement in the Arab world. This is where you can see Obama’s idealism laced with a dose of rational pragmatism. The immediate motivation of the no-fly zone was to prevent a massacre in Benghazi, which succeeded. This is Obama’s belief in the responsibility to protect. But from there the policy was cautious and more concerned with what can be achieved, not what should. We still don’t know if the course taken in Libya is the right one or whether it will lead to what should be the ultimate goal, regime-change, but what is evident is that it is the least worse response to the situation. For similar reasons we won’t be going into Syria anytime soon, as no good would come of it.

Solving the Unsolvable

This pragmatic idealism (a contradiction yes, but all politics is contradictory) offered by President Obama is about to be tested more than it ever has before. In his speech he outlined his support to the Arab Spring and the promise of billions of dollars in aid to the states that have been successful in overthrowing their dictators, Egypt and Tunisia. This new policy evokes probably the best piece of foreign policy in US history: the Marshall Plan. Through the injection of billions the Marshall Plan rebuilt Western Europe after WWII and banished the conditions of inequality that could have led to another huge European war; the money and debt relief for Egypt and Tunisia is a smaller gesture, but hopefully enough to have an impact. As well as this, Obama called for a peace-agreement between Israel and Palestine to begin with the borders that existed before the 1967 Six Day War. This is the first time a sitting US President has made this demand, and it is an important and necessary step for any lasting peace.

The biggest obstacle to progress at this point seems to be Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has rejected Obama’s call for pre-67 borders out of hand, along with his request for a freeze to the building of Israeli settlements. The continued building of settlements is, of course, both a threat to peace and to Israel’s existence in the future. Relations between Obama and Netanyahu, who leads a fragile and staunchly right-wing coalition, are toxic and marked by a complete lack of trust, an unusual situation for the usually steadfast allies. This is perhaps a reflection of a growing divide between the two nations’ interests on this issue. The Obama Administration sees solving the Israel-Palestine crisis as crucial to restoring American influence in the region, while the current Israeli government seems dangerously content with the status quo.

When Netanyahu first came to power, despite him coming from a party seemingly opposed to a peace-deal (or the conditions required for one), I saw it as having the potential for forging a final peace. Why? Because sometimes difficult reform is best achieved from someone who leads the party that most objects to it. This counter-intuitive idea is why President Clinton was able to enact welfare reform, Paul Keating was able to lead labour-market reform and why the audacious carbon-emissions targets in the UK are likely to stick: because they are being enacted by the Conservatives. They can bring along their side, and forge a consensus. In the case of Israeli domestic politics it doesn’t seem like much will happen without broad support, including at least some of the right-wing factions of Netanyahu’s coalition. A compromise forged from the right means there’s less likelihood a change of government in Israel might renege on the deal, which is why I retain a drop of optimism.

That said, what Netanyahu has been saying is extremely counter-productive, as he has immediately refused many of the conditions that are vital for any deal. But he may not have the luxury of such stubbornness for very long. In September the United Nations General Assembly seems almost certain to recognise Palestine as a member-nation for the first time, despite the increasingly isolated objections of the US and Israel. If Palestine does gain UN-recognition, it would turn Israel into the occupier of a sovereign, UN-recognised state. That would significantly alter the negotiating and international dynamic, and with a mild but important amount of pressure being applied by the US, Netanyahu may just be forced into serious negotiations (assuming his coalition doesn’t collapse).

The Obama Doctrine, if such a thing exists, is more about the style of engagement than the substance. It’s about multilateral negotiation and pursuing goals pragmatically. Those goals are a combination of idealistic, democratic and liberal values as well as traditional concerns of national interest and security. Obama has struck a better and more just balance of these competing and at times contradictory roles than any modern president; the question is whether they are up to the task of beginning to solve the most challenging and protracted problem of our time – finding homes for two peoples rejected throughout history, in the holiest of holy lands.

 

A Line of Ink is Max’s politics, ideas and art column. The name comes from a Ralf Steadman quote:

The world is lousy with wisdom. It was ever thus. Most of us complain, the optimists make a line of ink.